The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Sankaracarya eBook

one, because the sun is apprehended in the water erroneously
only while the antaryamin really abides within all
things, and therefore must be viewed as sharing their
defects (19); we reply that what the simile means to
negative is merely that Brahman should, owing to its
inherence in many places, participate in the increase,
decrease, and so on, of its abodes. On this view
both similes are appropriate (20).—­Analogous
similes we observe to be employed in ordinary life,
as when we compare a man to a lion (21).

Sutras 22-30 constitute, according to Sa@nkara,
a new adhikara/n/a (VI), whose object it is to show
that the clause ‘not so, not so’ (neti
neti; B/ri/hadar) negatives, not Brahman itself, but
only the two forms of Brahman described in the preceding
part of the chapter. Sutras 23-26 further dwell
on Brahman being in reality devoid of all distinctive
attributes which are altogether due to the upadhis.
The last four Sutras return to the question how, Brahman
being one only, the souls are in so many places spoken
of as different from it, and, two explanatory hypotheses
having been rejected, the conclusion is arrived at
that all difference is unreal, due to fictitious limiting
adjuncts.

According to Ramanuja, Sutras 22 ff. continue the
discussion started in Sutra 11. How, the question
is asked, can the ubhayali@ngatva of Brahman be maintained
considering that the ‘not so, not so’ of
the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka denies of Brahman all the previously
mentioned modes (prakara), so that it can only be
called that which is (sanmatra)?—­The reply
given in Sutra 22 is that ‘not so, not so’
does not deny of Brahman the distinctive qualities
or modes declared previously (for it would be senseless
at first to teach them, and finally to deny them again[16]),
but merely denies the prak/ri/taitavattva, the previously
stated limited nature of Brahman, i.e. it denies
that Brahman possesses only the previously mentioned
qualifications. With this agrees, that subsequently
to ‘neti neti’ Scripture itself enunciates
further qualifications of Brahman. That Brahman
as stated above is not the object of any other means
of proof but Scripture is confirmed in Sutra 23, ’Scripture
declares Brahman to be the non-manifest.’—­And
the intuition (sakshatkkara) of Brahman ensues only
upon its sa/m/radhana, i.e. upon its being perfectly
pleased by the worshipper’s devotion, as Scripture
and Sm/ri/ti declare (24).—­That this interpretation
of ‘neti’ is the right one, is likewise
shown by the fact that in the same way as praka/s/a,
luminousness, j/n/ana, intelligence, &c., so also the
quality of being differentiated by the world (prapa/nk/avsish/t/ata)
is intuited as non-different, i.e. as likewise
qualifying Brahman; and that praka/s/a, and so on,
characterise Brahman, is known through repeated practice
(on the part of rishis like Vamadeva) in the
work of sa/m/radhana mentioned before (25).—­For
all these reasons Brahman is connected with the infinite,